would commenting out FH_DATE_PAST_20XX in 72_active.cf help until it's
fixed?
Thanks
Frank
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Charles Gregory wrote:
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:50:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Gregory <cgreg...@hwcn.org>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: [sa] Re: FH_DATE_PAST_20XX
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 01/01/2010 10:15, Per Jessen wrote:
I just received some HAM with a surprisingly high score. The
following rule triggered:
* 3.2 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX The date is grossly in the future.
Agree, that should probably be [2-9][0-9].
Please open a bug for this, it should be fixed for 3.3.0
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6269
Following that URL you find out that the "bug" was fixed five months
ago. I'm using the Debian Lenny package and it doesn't contain that fix.
NOW the 'minor' issue I raised before has just become a MAJOR one.
I have already fixed my config, so let's skip *that* portion of the
argument.... :)
I speak for the unguessable number of people who have installed a 'standard'
3.2.x install with their linux variant, and don't monitor closely, or watch
this list. Some of them, we can hope, will have 'sa-update' running in their
nightly cron job. But will that do any good if this 'patch' is not 'rushed'
out as an sa-update for the current version?
You could release 3.3.0 today, but that would not benefit people who don't
know about the upgrade and leave it at 3.2.x.....
And my pity to all those people who don't run sa-update..... :(
- Charles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank DeChellis
Internet Access Worldwide
3 East Main Street Welland, Ontario, Canada L3B 3W4
905-714-1400 fax 905-732-0524
www.iaw.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
